I've said it before, Dean had a good idea on Liberia. The world knows that if there is real trouble somewhere, the only way to get something done is to have the US do it:

A spokesman for Mr. Annan said today that in a conversation this morning with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, he reiterated his request for a more sizable role for United States forces. "The secretary general's expectation is that the president will make the right decision and that U.S. forces in the region will play a constructive role," said Fred Eckhard, Mr. Annan's spokesman. The main American forces in the region are 2,300 marines in three Navy ships in the eastern Atlantic.

Dean's idea was that we should go, but use that as leverage to get some cooperation on Iraq. And it is still a good idea. I don't see any way that we can avoid involvement in Liberia, so we might as well get something for it.

Seems there was a good bit of Monday morning quarterbacking going on about Uday and Qusay, people saying that we should have taken them alive. Evidently the military had already weighed the options:

According to a commander with the 101st Airborne Division, Uday was still alive when a Delta Force commando stormed the bathroom where the brothers had barricaded themselves. Following Delta Force's standard procedure, the soldier immediately pumped two bullets into Uday's mouth, to ensure his death. The resulting injuries prompted speculation that Uday had committed suicide. Mustafa, 14, was the last to fall, firing from under a bed until he was shot dead.

From Time.

If you go to FreeMikeHawash.org now, they seem chastened. But not apologetic. ANd certainly not offering to return money.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh during lunch today, and he did a spectacular hit piece on Arnold Schwarzenegger today. He was trying to make it sound like he was making fun of the negativity of Katie Couric on him, but he piled right on with his own comments. He bashed Schwarzenegger for not being a Republican, but, really, his critique was that he wasn't conservative enough.

This brings to light something that was the focus of an editorial from the Wall Street Journal (looking for a link) a few weeks ago, that Republicanism is not conservatism, and the point then was spending under President Bush with a Republican Congress.

I've always held a practical definition of conservatism, that a conservative is someone who holds conservative positions, and that there is a scale like the American Conservative Union uses to rate candidates that can measure that. One doesn't have to agree with every conservative position to be conservative, just like you don't have to buy into every lberal position to be a liberal (see Howard Dean on gun control).

Rudy Giuliani was a Republican who didn't hold every conservative position, but Republicans had no problem with him campaigning for candidates in 2002, and he is credited with putting a few over the top. Why wasn't Limbaugh bashing his non-conservative positions? There are plenty of other Republicans who could be opposed by conservatives (cough)Arlen Specter(cough) that are not in that spotlight.

I thought Rush was disgraceful, and he was violating Ron's 11th Commandment, though I guess his out is that Arnold is not really a Republican.

But Rush doesn't get to make the call of who is Republican and who is not. Schwarzenegger has chosen to identify himself as a Republican for a long time. He could easily, in Hollywood, choose the other way. But he didn't. I think that says something by itself.

I think what is in play is a tactical move to keep a Democrat as governor of California. I've read that some Republicans think that recalling Davis gets him "off the hook," and then a Republican has deal with the very large, very real problems California has. They think if a Republican is there and is facing the same problems, it hurts the President's chances there in 2004.

Which I also think is disgraceful. It is essentially wishing ill on California to help a political position for the future, and that is just wrong. Californians may deserve their political ills, but if they can be rescued, they should be. And it would be great if the person who does that is a Republican, even if that Republican doesn't score 100 with the ACU. In the Army, we called a really tough job like that "an opportunity to excel." Because if you fail, well, everyone knew you had a tough job, but if you can do well, then you have really done something.

Plus I think these tacticians are wrong. W doesn't have a chance in California with Gray Davis in charge, no matter how much the people dislike Davis. But if they like, or love, Schwarzenegger, he can help, a lot, just like Rudy Giuliani.

Despite this being his first political campaign (as a candidate, anyway), Schwarzenegger may be quite effective. He may be able to use his immense public persona to break up the logjam in the California legislature. As a Republican, he can get movement where Davis couldn't with Republican members, and able to challenge the Democrats where Davis won't.

And as for Maria Shriver being First Lady, I remember seeing an interview with Arnold and Maria years ago, soon after their marriage. The interviewer asked Arnold about the fact that he was Republican and his wife was a Kennedy, and how that worked out. Arnold answered, <Ah-nuld voice>Whenever Maria and I disagree, I just pick her up and throw her in the pool.</Ah-nuld voice>

Mike Hawash pleads guilty. I bet these guys feel silly.

Yep, those are scare quotes. Since we are talking about Democrats, I thought I would share something about Dean and the internet. Much has been made that he "get's it," and he has a blog, and bloggers are going to rally to his aid. Bloggers like the Dean Defense Forces.

What is truly funny is the amount of spin on that site in defense of a candidate who has "straight talk" as a strong point.

Like on taxes - they want to say that Dean is not for raising taxes. But if he believes cutting taxes was wrong, why won't he say that he will raise them back up? Come on, give us some straight talk - tell us you think that George W. Bush is wrong in thinking that it is our money, and that the govenrment needs it more than we do. Americans are made of strong stuff, we can take it.

Also, the various bloggers are also at odds trying to prove just how "conservative" Dean is or how "liberal" he is.

If his strongest internet supporters cannot agree on that, then how is anyone else supposed to have an understanding of where the guy comes from?

Not to mention that a lot of wind will leave his sails once the evidence of WMD hits the streets....

Democrats showing once again why we cannot trust them with our security. The "serious" candidate on defense, John Kerry (he's a Vietnam veteran, you know), is criticizing the Bush administration for failing to appease North Korea. We know how well that works. Vodkapundit does a fisky-style takedown at his place.

But one thing Stephen misses is this precious line from Senator Kerry:

But the administration's erratic handling of the North Korean nuclear crisis over the past year leaves it little room for error.

The Bush administration is erratic in this matter? North Korea denied violating the Agreed Framework, then admitted to it, then said they had nuclear weapons, then they didn't, then they did again, then they were going to process plutonium, then they already had, they threatened to withdraw from the armistice with South Korea, they insisted on talks with the US alone, they agreed to talk with other countries, then abruptly pulled out of those talks, and are now going to talk multilaterally again, but won't allow US Undersecretary John Bolton to participate because he is "human scum and a bloodsucker" - this for stating that Kim Jong-Il is a tyrannical dictator.

And Bush is erratic.

Democrats are going to lose, and lose big.

Jonah takes off on the Arab League.

I'm not a political scientist, but it seems to me that if "representative government" is your thing, then a government ruled by a religious minority that brutally represses the majority denomination - Shiites - is not your bag.

Saddam's henchmen made Shiites lie down in the road only to have hot asphalt poured on them and then be flattened by a steamroller. I don't have the Federalist Papers committed to memory, but I'm sure that's not in there.

Secretary Rumsfeld called a General back from retirement to take over as Army Chief of Staff, now the dead wood is getting sent to the chipper:

In a move widely seen within the Pentagon as a purge, a dozen or more Army generals are being ushered into retirement as the Army’s new chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, takes over.

Shape up or ship out should be a familiar term to these generals. I've said it before - the Army leadership needs to internalize the same level of change that the Air Force and Navy already have.

Checking the CIA World Factbook....

Algeria
chief of state: President Abdelaziz BOUTEFLIKA (since 28 April 1999)head of government: Prime Minister Ali BENFLIS (since 26 August 2000)
cabinet: Cabinet of Ministers appointed by the president
elections: president elected by popular vote for a five-year term; election last held 15 April 1999 (next to be held NA April 2004); prime minister appointed by the president
election results: Abdelaziz BOUTEFLIKA elected president; percent of vote - Abdelaziz BOUTEFLIKA over 70%; note - his six opposing candidates withdrew on the eve of the election citing electoral fraud

Hmmm, no opponents. Not sure that counts.

Bahrain
chief of state: King HAMAD bin Isa Al Khalifa (since 6 March 1999); Heir Apparent Crown Prince SALMAN bin Hamad (son of the monarch, born 21 October 1969)
head of government: Prime Minister KHALIFA bin Salman Al Khalifa (since NA 1971)
cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the monarch
elections: none; the monarchy is hereditary; prime minister appointed by the monarch

That looks like a big NO.

Comoros
chief of state: President AZALI Assoumani (since 26 May 2002); note - AZALI Assoumani became president on 6 May 1999 after a bloodless coup on 30 April 1999; on 16 January 2002, President AZALI resigned his position to run in the 14 April 2002 presidential elections; during that time, Prime Minister Hamada Madi BOLERO served as interim president; AZALI Assoumani sworn in as president on 26 May 2002
election results: President AZALI Assoumani elected president with 75% of the vote
elections: president elected by popular vote for a five-year term; election last held 14 April 2002 (next to be held NA April 2007); prime minister appointed by the president
head of government: Prime Minister Hamada Madi BOLERO (since NA November 2000); note - on 16 January 2002, President AZALI resigned his position to run in the 14 April 2002 presidential elections; Prime Minister Hamada Madi BOLERO was appointed interim president and Djaffar SALIM interim deputy prime minister
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the president

Elected after taking over in a coup. Questionable.

Djibouti
chief of state: President Ismail Omar GUELLEH (since 8 May 1999)
head of government: Prime Minister DILEITA Mohamed Dileita (since 4 March 2001)
cabinet: Council of Ministers responsible to the president
elections: president elected by popular vote for a six-year term; election last held 9 April 1999 (next to be held NA 2005); prime minister appointed by the president
election results: Ismail Omar GUELLEH elected president; percent of vote - Ismail Omar GUELLEH 74.4%, IDRIS Moussa Ahmed 25.6%

There's one!

Egypt
chief of state: President Mohammed Hosni MUBARAK (since 14 October 1981)
head of government: Prime Minister Atef Mohammed ABEID (since 5 October 1999)
cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president
elections: president nominated by the People's Assembly for a six-year term, the nomination must then be validated by a national, popular referendum; national referendum last held 26 September 1999 (next to be held NA October 2005); prime minister appointed by the president
election results: national referendum validated President MUBARAK's nomination by the People's Assembly to a fourth term

That seems an awfully charitable description, to me. I don't think you should get to count it if you throw all your opponents in jail just before the election.

Jordan
chief of state: King ABDALLAH II (since 7 February 1999); Crown Prince HAMZAH (half brother of the monarch, born 29 March 1980)
head of government: Prime Minister Ali Abul RAGHEB (since 19 June 2000)
cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the prime minister in consultation with the monarch
elections: none; the monarch is hereditary; prime minister appointed by the monarch

Looks like another nope. I know Abdullah is a pal and all, and Instapundit thinks it might be a good idea to restore the Hashemite kingdom in Saudi Arabia, but no points here toward democracy.

Kuwait
chief of state: Amir JABIR al-Ahmad al-Jabir Al Sabah (since 31 December 1977)
head of government: Prime Minister and Crown Prince SAAD al-Abdallah al-Salim Al Sabah (since 8 February 1978); First Deputy Prime Minister SABAH al-Ahmad al-Jabir Al Sabah (since 17 October 1992); Deputy Prime Ministers JABIR MUBARAK al-Hamud Al Sabah (since NA) and MUHAMMAD KHALID al-Hamed Al Sabah (since NA)
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the prime minister and approved by the monarch
elections: none; the monarch is hereditary; prime minister and deputy prime ministers appointed by the monarch

Nope. And no points for having Rich Galen come over during "elections."

Lebanon
chief of state: President Emile LAHUD (since 24 November 1998)
head of government: Prime Minister Rafiq HARIRI (since 23 October 2000); Deputy Prime Minister Issam FARES (since 23 October 2000)
cabinet: Cabinet chosen by the prime minister in consultation with the president and members of the National Assembly
elections: president elected by the National Assembly for a six-year term; election last held 15 October 1998 (next to be held NA 2004); prime minister and deputy prime minister appointed by the president in consultation with the National Assembly; by custom, the president is a Maronite Christian, the prime minister is a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the legislature is a Shi'a Muslim
election results: Emile LAHUD elected president; National Assembly vote - 118 votes in favor, 0 against, 10 abstentions

Okay, kinda, but I guess the Syrian occupation doesn't count against their legitmacy.

Libya
chief of state: Revolutionary Leader Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-QADHAFI (since 1 September 1969); note - holds no official title, but is de facto chief of state
elections: national elections are indirect through a hierarchy of people's committees; head of government elected by the General People's Congress; election last held 2 March 2000 (next to be held NA)
election results: Mubarak al-SHAMEKH elected premier; percent of General People's Congress vote - NA%
cabinet: General People's Committee established by the General People's Congress
head of government: Secretary of the General People's Committee (Premier) Mubarak al-SHAMEKH (since 2 March 2000)

Libya. No.

Mauritania
chief of state: President Maaouya Ould Sid Ahmed TAYA (since 12 December 1984)
head of government: Prime Minister Cheikh El Avia Ould Mohamed KHOUNA (since 17 November 1998)
cabinet: Council of Ministers
elections: president elected by popular vote for a six-year term; election last held 12 December 1997 (next to be held NA December 2003); prime minister appointed by the president
election results: President Maaouya Ould Sid Ahmed TAYA reelected with 90.9% of the vote

Again, a pretty charitable description. As the summary says, "Two multiparty presidential elections since then were widely seen as flawed, but October 2001 legislative and municipal elections were generally free and open. Mauritania remains, in reality, a one-party state." Who would have thought the CIA World Factbook was so PC - here's the government entry on Cuba.

Morocco
chief of state: King MOHAMED VI (since 23 July 1999)
head of government: Prime Minister Driss JETTOU (since 9 October 2002)
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the monarch
elections: none; the monarch is hereditary; prime minister appointed by the monarch following legislative elections

Nope.

Oman
chief of state: Sultan and Prime Minister QABOOS bin Said Al Said (since 23 July 1970); note - the monarch is both the chief of state and head of government
head of government: Sultan and Prime Minister QABOOS bin Said Al Said (since 23 July 1970); note - the monarch is both the chief of state and head of government
cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the monarch
elections: none; the monarch is hereditary

Nope.

Palestine.
No entry - because it isn't a country! Of course, if it were, it doesn't have an elected government.

Qatar

Thanks for the help in the War on Iraq, but nope.

Saudi Arabia
chief of state: King and Prime Minister FAHD bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (since 13 June 1982); Crown Prince and First Deputy Prime Minister ABDALLAH bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (half-brother to the monarch, heir to the throne since 13 June 1982, regent from 1 January to 22 February 1996); note - the monarch is both the chief of state and head of government
elections: none; the monarch is hereditary
head of government: King and Prime Minister FAHD bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (since 13 June 1982); Crown Prince and First Deputy Prime Minister ABDALLAH bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (half-brother to the monarch, heir to the throne since 13 June 1982, regent from 1 January to 22 February 1996); note - the monarch is both the chief of state and head of government
cabinet: Council of Ministers is appointed by the monarch and includes many royal family members

That was a toughie. Nope.

Somalia
chief of state: ABDIKASSIM Salad Hassan (since 26 August 2000); note - Interim President ABDIKASSIM was chosen for a three-year term by a 245-member National Assembly serving as a transitional government; the present political situation is still unstable, particularly in the south, with interclan fighting and random banditry
election results: ABDIKASSIM Salad Hassan was elected president of an interim government at the Djibouti-sponsored Arta Peace Conference on 26 August 2000 by a broad representation of Somali clans that comprised a transitional National Assembly
head of government: Prime Minister HASSAN Abshir Farah (since 12 November 2001)
cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the prime minister and sworn in on 20 October 2000; as of 1 January 2002, the Cabinet was in caretaker status following a no-confidence vote in October 2001 that ousted HASSAN's predecessor

I guess their transitional government is okay.

Sudan
chief of state: President Lt. Gen. Umar Hasan Ahmad al-BASHIR (since 16 October 1993); First Vice President Ali Uthman Muhammad TAHA (since 17 February 1998), Second Vice President Moses MACHAR (since 12 February 2001); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government
elections: president elected by popular vote for a five-year term; election last held 13-23 December 2000 (next to be held NA 2005)
note: BASHIR assumed supreme executive power in 1989 and retained it through several transitional governments in the early and mid-90s before being popularly elected for the first time in March 1996
election results: Umar Hasan Ahmad al-BASHIR reelected president; percent of vote - Umar Hasan Ahmad al-BASHIR 86.5%, Ja'afar Muhammed NUMAYRI 9.6%, three other candidates received less than a combined 4% of the vote; election widely viewed as rigged; all popular opposition parties boycotted elections because of a lack of guarantees for a free and fair poll
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the president; note - the National Congress Party or NCP (formerly the National Islamic Front or NIF) dominates BASHIR's cabinet
head of government: President Lt. Gen. Umar Hasan Ahmad al-BASHIR (since 16 October 1993); First Vice President Ali Uthman Muhammad TAHA (since 17 February 1998), Second Vice President Moses MACHAR (since 12 February 2001); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government

Another coup first, dare you to vote against me later kind of guy. Questionable.

Syria
chief of state: President Bashar al-ASAD (since 17 July 2000); Vice Presidents Abd al-Halim ibn Said KHADDAM (since 11 March 1984) and Muhammad Zuhayr MASHARIQA (since 11 March 1984)
head of government: Prime Minister Muhammad Mustafa MIRU (since 13 March 2000), Deputy Prime Ministers Lt. Gen. Mustafa TALAS (since 11 March 1984), Farouk al-SHARA (since 13 December 2001), Dr. Muhammad al-HUSAYN (since 13 December 2001)
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the president
elections: president elected by popular vote for a seven-year term; referendum/election last held 10 July 2000 - after the death of President Hafez al-ASAD, father of Bashar al-ASAD - (next to be held NA 2007); vice presidents appointed by the president; prime minister and deputy prime ministers appointed by the president
note: Hafiz al-ASAD died on 10 June 2000; on 20 June 2000, the Ba'th Party nominated Bashar al-ASAD for president and presented his name to the People's Council on 25 June 2000
election results: Bashar al-ASAD elected president; percent of vote - Bashar al-ASAD 97.29%

Wow! I love how that is described here. Of course, a little further up in the government description: "republic under military regime since March 1963."

Tunisia
chief of state: President Zine El Abidine BEN ALI (since 7 November 1987)
head of government: Prime Minister Mohamed GHANNOUCHI (since 17 November 1999)
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the president
elections: president elected by popular vote for a five-year term; election last held 24 October 1999 (next to be held NA 2004); prime minister appointed by the president
election results: President Zine El Abidine BEN ALI reelected for a third term without opposition; percent of vote - Zine El Abidine BEN ALI nearly 100%

Again, no opponents, and a near 100% result. I'm going to have to put that in the questionable category.

United Arab Emirates
chief of state: President ZAYID bin Sultan Al Nuhayyan (since 2 December 1971), ruler of Abu Zaby (Abu Dhabi) (since 6 August 1966) and Vice President MAKTUM bin Rashid al-Maktum (since 8 October 1990), ruler of Dubayy (Dubai)
note: there is also a Federal Supreme Council (FSC) composed of the seven emirate rulers; the FSC is the highest constitutional authority in the UAE; establishes general policies and sanctions federal legislation; meets four times a year; Abu Zaby (Abu Dhabi) and Dubayy (Dubai) rulers have effective veto power
head of government: Prime Minister MAKTUM bin Rashid al-Maktum (since 8 October 1990), ruler of Dubayy (Dubai); Deputy Prime Minister SULTAN bin Zayid Al Nuhayyan (since 20 November 1990)
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the president
elections: president and vice president elected by the FSC (a group of seven electors) for five-year terms; election last held 2 December 2001 (next to be held NA 2006); prime minister and deputy prime minister appointed by the president
election results: ZAYID bin Sultan Al Nuhayyan reelected president; percent of FSC vote - NA%, but believed to be unanimous; MAKTUM bin Rashid al-Maktum elected vice president; percent of FSC vote - NA%, but believed to be unanimous

That unanimous election result looks suspicious, but I guess I'll give them benefit of the doubt.

Yemen
chief of state: President Field Marshall Ali Abdallah SALIH (since 22 May 1990, the former president of North Yemen, assumed office upon the merger of North and South Yemen); Vice President Maj. Gen. Abd al-Rab Mansur al-HADI (since 3 October 1994)
head of government: Prime Minister Abd al-Qadir BA JAMAL (since 4 April 2001)
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister
election results: Ali Abdallah SALIH elected president; percent of vote - Ali Abdallah SALIH 96.3%, Najib Qahtan AL-SHAABI 3.7%
elections: president elected by direct, popular vote for a seven-year term (recently extended from a five-year term by constitutional amendment); election last held 23 September 1999 (next to be held NA 2006); vice president appointed by the president; prime minister and deputy prime ministers appointed by the president

Again with the suspiciously high election returns. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, too.

So, by my count, that looks like 21 members of the Arab League, 10 of which are definitely not "legitimate" governments under the new concern for democracy, and another 7 that are questionable under the standard applied to Iraq.

The Arab League suddenly cares about democracy:

Arab League members decided Tuesday not to recognize Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council, saying they will wait until a government is elected.

....

"The council is a start, but it should pave the way for a legitimate government that can be recognized," league Secretary-General Amr Moussa said after a committee of foreign ministers met to forge a unified stance on how to deal with Iraq.

The Arab League had no qualms with the legitimacy of Hussein's government. I guess they bought that 100% election stuff. But if an elected government is necessary, would someone please point which of the following nations is eligible?

• Algeria
  
• Bahrain
  
• Comoros
  
• Djibouti
  
• Egypt
  
• Jordan
  
• Kuwait
  
• Lebanon
  
• Libya
  
• Mauritania
  
• Morocco
  
• Oman
  
• Palestine
  
• Qatar
  
• Saudi Arabia
  
• Somalia
  
• Sudan
  
• Syria
  
• Tunisia
  
• United Arab Emirates
  
• Yemen

Larry Flynt is running for governor of California. Seems to me, that's just about perfect. Something about people getting the politicians they deserve?

Sorta. Tacitus notes in this post something from the Communist Chinese press about Kim Jong-Il being elected to something in North Korea with 100% of the vote!

Seems like Hussein tried to pull this one over on the world not too long before we chased him off. As John Derbyshire noted in The Corner a couple of weeks ago, with the deaths of U&Q and the near death of Idi Amin, things are not looking so great for nutball dictators. (I'd put the link up, but their adserver is slowing things to a crawl. That's what they get for 3(!) popups on the main page!)

As it should be. The dictators, I mean.

Oh, it finally loaded. It was called BAD WEEK FOR PSYCHOS.

Clubbeaux is still on the air, but probably not broadcasting - the proprietor, David Sims, is off to run a coffee house in Turkey. I guess it will be easy to visit Free Iraq from there.

In a twist on blogging, Anticipatory Retaliation is switching from a supply side to a demand side format. In short, instead of just blogging about what he wants to blog about, he'll blog about what you ask for. He provides a poll to begin the topics, but he's got another list here. So sign up for all your supercavitation needs!

Right Wing News has new digs but the same address. At this time, Lileks is still b0rken. I don't know if it related to his broadcasting the poor service of his ISP or what. Not sure which is more disturbing, IMAO, or the people who get posted in the peace gallery. I'm gonna have to get me a Nuke the Moon shirt and find out.

All the "Bush is a liar" stuff is swinging back, and picking up momentum. Big Media hasn't gotten that gestalt yet, but it will be smacking some of the bigs in the NYT and the Washington Post right between the eyes. For example, the Washington Post ran this headline on page A1 on July 30:

Scientists Still Deny Iraqi Arms Programs

U.S. Interrogations Net No Evidence

The byline was Walter Pincus and Kevin Sullivan

The next day, July 31, an article with this headline appeared on page A15:

Iraqi Scientists Helping, CIA Adviser Says

Team Is Finding New Sites in Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction

Bylined by Walter Pincus. And reading further into the article, another piece of bad reporting:

Kay took issue with a report in yesterday's Washington Post that quoted administration sources as saying the Iraq Survey Group had essentially suspended site examinations while it was analyzing documents. Kay said that the team is visiting new sites and that "almost every one of them is one that we did not know about until we were led to it by Iraqis or the documentation we have seized."

I wonder when we'll see a Big Media reference to this story in The Guardian from September 2002:

Iraqi agents have been negotiating with criminal gangs in the Democratic Republic of Congo to trade Iraqi military weapons and training for high-grade minerals, possibly including uranium, according to evidence obtained by the Guardian.

It comes as the dossier unveiled by Tony Blair accused Saddam Hussein of trying to buy African uranium to give Iraq's weapons programme a nuclear capability. The dossier did not identify any country allegedly approached by Baghdad but security analysts said the Congo was the likeliest, followed by South Africa.

"We know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful," Mr Blair said.

A delegation of five Iraqis was arrested in Nairobi by the Kenyan secret service last November while travelling to eastern Congo on fake Indian passports, a western intelligence officer said.

Documents seen by the Guardian show that leaders of the Mayi-Mayi, a brutal militia embroiled in the country's civil war, visited Baghdad twice and offered diamonds and gold to the Iraqis. Uranium was not mentioned in the documents but the intelligence officer said the Mayi-Mayi would be able to obtain the material in areas it controlled.

(Link via newsrack blog). No Niger there, and no forged documents. And then there is what DEBKA has to say about those forged documents (I don't put much credence in DEBKA, but it is an interesting story even if made up. (Link via LGF):

What went wrong was that the documentary evidence - handed to Bush by Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi in confidence, as DEBKA-Net-Weekly now reveals, had been doctored by anti-American, anti-war factions in Italian intelligence in such a way that it would be discovered and appear to be fabricated. They plotted to bring the three war leaders into disrepute by manipulating them into committing an untruth while also souring the warm relations between the Italian prime minister and the White House.

The identities of the Italian intelligence plotters were at the center of the two days of private talks held by Bush and Berlusconi at the presidential ranch in Crawford, Texas July 20 and 21. The Italian prime minister brought with him the results of a private investigation. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources reveal that the agents who falsified the intelligence documents were also involved in staging the mass anti-war demonstrations that swept across Europe ahead of the American invasion of Iraq and accompanied the UN Security Council war debate.

They worked with accomplices in Russian, British, French, Dutch and German intelligence and allies in Africa in an anti-coalition front.

If that is true, that is an absolutely stunning action. I have no idea how we would react. I don't even have any idea how we should react.

Instapundit links to another story, this time from the Swedes.

"This is the "smoking gun" the U.S. is looking for," she says.
The allegations made by the TV team is based on tips from two Iraqi scientists. ...

The evidence consisted of files, documents and maps. ... After having been informed of the findings by telephone, FOI chose to send down two men.
"They flew down immediately and worked with us for a week. After a preliminary investigation they assessed that the findings were very interesting and almost to good to be true," Wera Maria Cedrell says.

The TV team and the experts visited buildings and locations pointed out by the Iraqi scientists. They describe the production of WMD's as small-scaled but copious.

"We visited about ten locations. Everything was looted, but only for chairs and tables — not documents. We found a lot of documents and blueprints, and also material and boxes." ...

The evidence will be presented in a series of books, which Wera Maria Cedrell currently are writing together with the American journalist Nate Thyer and an Iraqi member of the Governing Council."

In the same post, there is a link to an article regarding David Kelly, the British weapons inspector who recently committed suicide had evidence that Saddam Hussein had built and tested a "dirty bomb."

I joked before that the reason why we hadn't heard the evidence of WMD is because of the Rovian influence, but it was a joke, because I can't imagine this being allowed to go on and eat up Presidential approval rating points. But Howard Dean is still taking Democrat money like mad, and it seems to me his campaign implodes when evidence of WMD in Iraq hits the streets. And all those job approval points come back, too.